On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with your proposed approach to moving Levenshtein into core. > However, I think this should be separated into two patches, one of > them moving the Levenshtein functionality into core, and the other > adding the new treatment for missing column errors. If you can do > that relatively soon, I'll make an effort to get the refactoring patch > committed in the near future. Once that's done, we can focus in on > the interesting part of the patch, which is the actual machinery for > suggesting alternatives.
Okay, thanks. I think I can do that fairly soon. > On that topic, I think there's unanimous consensus against the design > where equally-distant matches are treated differently based on whether > they are in the same RTE or different RTEs. I think you need to > change that if you want to get anywhere with this. Alright. It wasn't as if I felt very strongly about it either way. > On a related note, > the use of the additional parameter AttrNumber closest[2] to > searchRangeTableForCol() and of the additional parameters AttrNumber > *matchedatt and int *distance to scanRTEForColumn() is less than > self-documenting. I suggest creating a structure called something > like FuzzyAttrMatchState and passing a pointer to it down to both > functions. Sure. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
